Topic: Richard Dawkins

[jooneyisdagod]

Yeah, whatever. Just keep quoting the EDL and I'll ignore you from here on.

But I haven't quoted the EDL. Anyway carry on.

[Corkboy]

Unless anyone can explain why a thread about one of the foremost scientific minds of his generation is now about the EDL, I would appreciate you two giving it a rest.

[Twelfth Man]

Unless anyone can explain why a thread about one of the foremost scientific minds of his generation is now about the EDL, I would appreciate you two giving it a rest.

Tommy Singh disagrees.

[U can call me Cookie]

While I'm not really a fan of Dawkins' militant approach (I say believe whatever you want to, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others), what he does, in a sense, allows others to have a voice. So it is important.
He also has the right to say what he likes, especially seeing as he has likely put effort into researching it.

I feel Nessy, that you were being a little judgemental above, and in a sense, was blinded by your own biases against the EDL. I don't know much about them, apart from them them being an extreme right political party. Not my cup of tea.
You say that Dawkins shouldn't give them more ammunition. The fact is, whether he does or not is irrelevant.  They will continue to cherry pick and twist facts, regardless of where they get them from. That's what they do, and their base is unlikely to care where their 'facts' come from.

A lot of what SG,P said was true, though maybe a little generalised. To say he was speaking from the EDL handbook is a bit disingenuous. Doing only shuts down discussion,  which is exactly what fundamentalist groups of all stripes want.

[Nessy76]

While I'm not really a fan of Dawkins' militant approach (I say believe whatever you want to, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others), what he does, in a sense, allows others to have a voice. So it is important.
He also has the right to say what he likes, especially seeing as he has likely put effort into researching it.

Of course he does. He also has a responsibility to be aware of how what he says is likely to be interpreted by those with an agenda. All I am saying is that Twitter is possibly not the best place to make potentially incendiary statements, because there is no room for context and explanation.

I feel Nessy, that you were being a little judgemental above, and in a sense, was blinded by your own biases against the EDL. I don't know much about them, apart from them them being an extreme right political party. Not my cup of tea.

They aren't even a political party. They are simply a group of neo-nazi, wannabe fascists. I didn't bring them into this conversation. But I'm not going to sit back while someone says they are just a good old bunch of lads. Because they aren't. And to me, you don't ever sit in silence on that, you have a responsibility to challenge that. I didn't lecture anyone, I just told him to do some basic research.

You say that Dawkins shouldn't give them more ammunition. The fact is, whether he does or not is irrelevant.  They will continue to cherry pick and twist facts, regardless of where they get them from. That's what they do, and their base is unlikely to care where their 'facts' come from.

So why are we talking about them here? I didn't bring them up.

A lot of what SG,P said was true, though maybe a little generalised. To say he was speaking from the EDL handbook is a bit disingenuous. Doing only shuts down discussion,  which is exactly what fundamentalist groups of all stripes want.

I don't know what his agenda is. As I said, I'm not going to speculate on that.

I do know that if I started talking about an organisation in a different country, and was told by someone who lived there that they weren't what I thought they were, I'd check my facts before I came back into that conversation and shot my mouth off again. I can't see any reason why anyone wouldn't do that while they are, after all, sat at a computer.

That's all I have to say on that.

[coolbyrne]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/-ZuowNcuGsc</a>

I missed this back in April. Thanks, corkboy!

"God has three words for you- You are a fool!"

 

[jooneyisdagod]

Unless anyone can explain why a thread about one of the foremost scientific minds of his generation is now about the EDL, I would appreciate you two giving it a rest.

It isn't. If you read my posts you'll see that the EDL aren't anywhere near the gist of the posts.

Unless you are Nessy who seems desperate for a gold star from the EDL haters society. I couldn't care less about the EDL. I think I've made that amply obvious with ringing endorsements such as,

Mate, I'll take your word on the EDL. Perhaps they are indeed fascist bastards and that quite simply means we are wasting our time talking about them. That said, I never said they were thinkers just that as soon as any one of them says something they are told they are fascist bastards and hence they hold that opinion.

Strangely enough despite there being several more paragraphs in that post, not one was in reference to the EDL given of course this is a topic about Richard Dawkins.

Until Nessy again brought up the EDL while saying that Dawkins had to look at himself and stop saying these things because if the EDL agree with you, you've got to look at yourself and I responded by saying that the EDL have also used statistics from the census, so the census ought to look at themselves as well and stop publishing such data. I said census but turns out it's something called the Pew report that published that data. But I digress. I was simply showing his logical fallacy there. It was one paragraph in response to Nessy's assertions. In a post with several other assertions.

And I get told I have an agenda and that he simply won't sit back and watch since he is some white knight protecting the poor from the merciless. Fucking bollocks. Maybe he should read what is being said first before jumping to conclusions about other people having agendas.

Finally, I didn't even bring up the EDL in the first place. Someone else did and I was responding to that person.  So much for me calling them a swell bunch of lads.

[Nessy76]

It isn't. If you read my posts you'll see that the EDL aren't anywhere near the gist of the posts.

Unless you are Nessy who seems desperate for a gold star from the EDL haters society. I couldn't care less about the EDL. I think I've made that amply obvious with ringing endorsements such as,

Really? You're going there?

[Malaysian Kopite]

[B0151?]

Unless anyone can explain why a thread about one of the foremost scientific minds of his generation is now about the EDL, I would appreciate you two giving it a rest.

heres why pal

[muyuu]

heres why pal

He's right though.

They seem to be achieving the least per capita ever. Fundamentalism is crippling, so this is not really a big mystery.

[brownie 09]

It's like he is a parody account.

His parody account though is amusing

@RlCHARDDAWKlNS: if muslims are so great how come no muslims ever won a blue peter badge

[brownie 09]

He's right though.

They seem to be achieving the least per capita ever. Fundamentalism is crippling, so this is not really a big mystery.

whats it got to do with a anything though ffs it's playground shit. Actually it's not its more serious, he is a bigoted bellend now. Making a fool of people like me who don't believe in god making us sound like crazy bellends.

If he wasnt Richard Dawkins most reasonable people would be laughing him off as being some bigoted idiot.

[muyuu]

whats it got to do with a anything though ffs it's playground shit. Actually it's not its more serious, he is a bigoted bellend now. Making a fool of people like me who don't believe in god making us sound like crazy bellends.

If he wasnt Richard Dawkins most reasonable people would be laughing him off as being some bigoted idiot.

If you follow him, you will see it's an important theme now how Western liberals happily bash christian nonsense but get all outraged when islamic nonsense is attacked because it's somehow "racist".

I agree. Fuck them religious nuts of any religion.

The reality is that islam is very crippling for scientific development for obvious reasons, as is any sort of fundamental religious belief. It's fine by me to point it out bluntly and in their face.

[Nessy76]

Dawkins doesn't have a Nobel prize, either.

[brownie 09]

If you follow him, you will see it's an important theme now how Western liberals happily bash christian nonsense but get all outraged when islamic nonsense is attacked because it's somehow "racist".

I agree. Fuck them religious nuts of any religion.

The reality is that islam is very crippling for scientific development for obvious reasons, as is any sort of fundamental religious belief. It's fine by me to point it out bluntly and in their face.

I just don't see the point in it, it's people choice what they want to do and follow. i dont believe in god, and i find the whole idea of believing in good daft but thats me, it has nothing to do with me what other people follow and to basically label someone following another religion with which dawkins does as stupid or labeling them all evil is wrong.

People are trying to defend Dawkins as stating facts, maybe it is a fact but you add it in with the rest of his bile it's just bigoted.

If tommy Robinson said this everyone would be labelling him a bellend.

[brownie 09]

Also I did follow him as I thought I'd learn a thing or two or you know see something interesting from a great mind but I haven't seen anything.

[Nessy76]

Also I did follow him as I thought I'd learn a thing or two or you know see something interesting from a great mind but I haven't seen anything.

In fairness to Dawkins, his books on evolution are fantastic and you will definitely learn a lot from reading them.

I don't see what the point of tweeting something like that is - it's basic trolling. No-one is going to read that and think "oh, well, I've spent my whole life believing in the power of Allah and the wisdom of His Prophet, but if I'm not getting a Nobel Prize, forget about it." Are they?

[muyuu]

How is it bigoted exactly? Honest question.

Also when did Dawkins label them "all evil"? I missed that.

[brownie 09]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100230250/please-be-quiet-richard-dawkins-im-begging-as-a-fan/ this sums it up pretty nicely for me.

[muyuu]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100230250/please-be-quiet-richard-dawkins-im-begging-as-a-fan/ this sums it up pretty nicely for me.

PC nonsense.

It still doesn't answer my questions above.

[brownie 09]

In fairness to Dawkins, his books on evolution are fantastic and you will definitely learn a lot from reading them.

I don't see what the point of tweeting something like that is - it's basic trolling. No-one is going to read that and think "oh, well, I've spent my whole life believing in the power of Allah and the wisdom of His Prophet, but if I'm not getting a Nobel Prize, forget about it." Are they?

exactly, I know I would learn from his books that's why I followed him. Hoping to see this sort of thinking on a daily basis.

Instead all you get is implying Muslims are stupid and that they all need to come out and apologise for the Muslims who go out to kill.

Like the article said he has gone from questioning a religion which does have some disgusting elements to it, to attacking the people who follow it.

[007.lankyguy]

Bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race

Guess it also depends on your definition of what intolerance is and how far this goes but it's not hard to see how Dawkins can be labelled bigoted.

[brownie 09]

How is it bigoted exactly? Honest question.

Also when did Dawkins label them "all evil"? I missed that.

I he may not have said it directly but you get the kind of rhetoric from his tweets that this is what he believes.

How is it bigoted? Well every hour of every day he preaching about his hate for Islam and Muslims.

[Nessy76]

How is it bigoted exactly? Honest question.

A bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

You could argue the toss, it's perhaps a little strong, but I'd call that post in particular contemptuous and it's clearly "on the basis of religion".

[Nessy76]

PC nonsense.

In the Telegraph?

[muyuu]

exactly, I know I would learn from his books that's why I followed him. Hoping to see this sort of thinking on a daily basis.

Instead all you get is implying Muslims are stupid and that they all need to come out and apologise for the Muslims who go out to kill.

Like the article said he has gone from questioning a religion which does have some disgusting elements to it, to attacking the people who follow it.

He's not implying that. He's implying that religious views of the world are crippling for science. Which IMO is quite self evident. The more fundamental your religious approach, the worse.

Bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race

Guess it also depends on your definition of what intolerance is and how far this goes but it's not hard to see how Dawkins can be labelled bigoted.

I fail to see where is there any intolerance in the message above. It's a fact. A massive group like muslims, number one religion in the world in population, have surprisingly little scientific achievement to their name in the modern age when the rest of the world has basically moved on from extremism.

Intolerance to intolerance is bigotry? because that's basically what his militant approach is about.

[Nessy76]

He's not implying that. He's implying that religious views of the world are crippling for science. Which IMO is quite self evident. The more fundamental your religious approach, the worse.

Hmm, you do know who founded Trinity College Cambridge in the first place though, right? And to what that name refers?

[brownie 09]

He's not implying that. He's implying that religious views of the world are crippling for science. Which IMO is quite self evident. The more fundamental your religious approach, the worse.


I fail to see where is there any intolerance in the message above. It's a fact. A massive group like muslims, number one religion in the world in population, have surprisingly little scientific achievement to their name in the modern age when the rest of the world has basically moved on from extremism.

Intolerance to intolerance is bigotry? because that's basically what his militant approach is about.

it's not just the one tweet though. If he had only one tweet on his account and that was it then no it wouldn't be bigoted but you take in every tweet, like he goes on about the need for Muslims to apologise for other Muslims action (and there been more but I haven't got the time to quote them) then to me it is bigoted.

And even if he does think that religion is crippling science tough fucking shit, stop acting like a child and grow up.

IMO his views and others like his are are doing more damage to living in a world peacefully then Muslims are to crippling science.

[muyuu]

Hmm, you do know who founded Trinity College Cambridge in the first place though, right? And to what that name refers?

Yep, you see how they have moved on? or do you believe many people believe in the Genesis these days?

Dawkins bashes christianity as much as islam. He's always done, and that was ok with most people in the UK. But "minorities" have a right to be fucking backwards it seems.

I can't be arsed to be "nice" to any religion and certainly not to gay-murdering, women-beating paedophile worshipping fucktards.

[Nessy76]

Yep, you see how they have moved on? or do you believe many people believe in the Genesis these days?

Dawkins bashes christianity as much as islam. He's always done, and that was ok with most people in the UK. But "minorities" have a right to be fucking backwards it seems.

I can't be arsed to be "nice" to any religion and certainly not to gay-murdering, women-beating paedophile worshipping fucktards.

I can see where you're stuggling with the word "bigot" now, anyway. 

[brownie 09]

Yep, you see how they have moved on? or do you believe many people believe in the Genesis these days?

Dawkins bashes christianity as much as islam. He's always done, and that was ok with most people in the UK. But "minorities" have a right to be fucking backwards it seems.

I can't be arsed to be "nice" to any religion and certainly not to gay-murdering, women-beating paedophile worshipping fucktards.

hey I bet you loved that daily mail headline calling that pots fella a product of welfare Britain?

Because what you've done there is no fucking different.

I don't judge people because of a label I judge them on them. That's it.

You are either a good person or a c*nt that's it. Nothing else.

[muyuu]

hey I bet you loved that daily mail headline calling that pots fella a product of welfare Britain?

Because what you've done there is no fucking different.

I don't judge people because of a label I judge them on them. That's it.

You are either a good person or a c*nt that's it. Nothing else.

People are not necessarily born c*nts though. It's about their upbringing above all.

Hence the problem with backwards belief systems.

[brownie 09]

People are not necessarily born c*nts though. It's about their upbringing above all.

Hence the problem with backwards belief systems.

yes but judging everyone the same is daft, well actually backwards

Just because you believe religion makes people c*nts is stupid.

I'm form liverpool I'm not a robbing bastard as some would say

I lived on a council estate - some would say the chance are by the time I was 13 I'd have a kid, I'd be scrounging of the state and trying to get into Jeremy Kyle.

It's fucking ridiculous to just write people off because of some backwards label.

[muyuu]

yes but judging everyone the same is daft,

Just because you believe religion makes people c*nts is stupid.

I'm form liverpool I'm not a robbing bastard as some would say

I lived on a council estate - some would say the chance are by the time I was 13 I'd have a kid, I'd be scrounging of the state.

It's fucking ridiculous to just write people off because of some backwards label.

Thankfully most people these days (in the West mind, not everywhere) don't quite believe the tenets of their supposed religion.

But anyone who honestly believes the Bible or the Quran are word by word true and it's the "word of God" - which is pretty much the tenet of these religions - is an absolute c*nt in my book. Because these books defend complete atrocities.

There are no two ways about that.

Thankfully a lot of "christians" these days have never even read their bible. The only good about these religions is that more and more people are cherry picking only half way acceptable parts of them, those parts that are acceptable to modern ethics. And then again this is quite discretionary. You go and listen to people like Pastor Steven Anderson who actually preaches the word of the bible, and it's fucking scary what it can do to people's minds. There is a trend about that too in certain parts of the world.

Religion by and large cannot be given any credit because that's opening a massive can of worms.

It's you who is going by labels. I believe these people are not fucking daft, I believe their problem is their fucking backwards beliefs, not that they are genetically stupid. What's your hypothesis to that fact? is it their religion? or is it that they are fucking stupid by birth? because the fact is there and it's undeniable. I think it's their religion, these people are perfectly intelligent in my personal opinion.

[Mouth]

Dawkins is a twat.

[Pidalow]

Dawkins is a twat.

I agree.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The debate's suddenly gone high brow. I think Mouth may be right mind. Though we should concede that he has a fantastic back catalogue of books on science. I think it is fair to say that he was made a twat as a result of persecution by twats.

[jooneyisdagod]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100230250/please-be-quiet-richard-dawkins-im-begging-as-a-fan/ this sums it up pretty nicely for me.

Poor article. Dawkin's fight is against an ideology not a race. It's pretty obvious.

[MichaelA]

The debate's suddenly gone high brow. I think Mouth may be right mind. Though we should concede that he has a fantastic back catalogue of books on science. I think it is fair to say that he was made a twat as a result of persecution by twats.

So he's basically out first aethist martyr?

I'm with mouth Dawkins is an intellectual colossus with the emotional intelligence of a poorly evolved microbe.